dpzum1:...or she could just not have unprotected sex. You know, take a little farking responsibility. But NOOOOO, that means that she couldn't relinquish said responsibility at will.

Just sayin...

You would think so since clinics and many schools give out condoms for free but It is not about responsibility but authority/power without having to be responsible/face the consequences for its use.

They get to say who , when and how (except of course for rape)The chant is their body their business and keeping "our laws" off their bodies except when it comes to paying for the consequences of what they do with their body. Then they are all about reaching into the tax payers or the alleged father's pocket. and damn you to hell for your "war on women" if you are not willing to part with that money with no strings attached.

Back in the '80s, I got involved in a counter-protest group against Operation Rescue's attack on Atlanta's women's clinics. We used the coathanger with the "international no" circle-and-slash symbol on our fliers (one of my first uses of Pagemaker). I think that gets the point across better than just the coathanger.

BigGrnEggGriller:Or she could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but whatever.

Yeah, because carrying a kid to term causes exactly the same medical expense, work disruption and health risks as a first-term abortion. Not to mention the mental trauma women suffer from giving kids up for adoption, which unlike "post-abortion syndrome," is a real medical condition.

factoryconnection:Theaetetus: Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.

vartian: I see absolutely no problem in reminding people of one of the actual consequence of restricting abortion.

Points taken, and I agree about the need for abortion rights in this country because of where it leaves us otherwise. I still agree with Subby that this falls under the "you're not helping" category of PR campaigns.

I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.

I googled "DC abortion fund" instead of clicking and sure enough:1. It is legit; they raise money to help broke women pay for an abortion2. Their "coat hanger pendant" is something they're actually giving to donors3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze. Can't say I blame 'em.

DoctorWhat:Yes. This has been a big factor in making my viewpoints more nuanced. My wife had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks gestation. The thoughtlessly pro-life who heard about it thought we were monsters, and the thoughtlessly pro-choice didn't want to acknowledge our grief or that we considered our dead child to be part of our family.

Yeah, one of the things that sucks about the whole battle is that the truthful, compassionate nuances get swallowed up in partisan tumult. Women view their unborn children differently, have different amounts of attachment to them, and grieve differently (or not at all) when pregnancies are miscarried or aborted - this variance, too, is part of free choice. I hate it when the experiences of women are minimized because they don't neatly fit one side of the political narrative.

I'm really really pro-choice. I've had an abortion myself and don't have lingering emotions about it. But I do know women for whom abortion was an emotional sucker-punch, and while they aren't in the majority, glossing over their experiences in fear that the pro-lifers will use them to score points does nobody any favors.

garandman1a:I would LOVE one of those, but I can't in good faith donate to a cause which is dedicated to stopping the heart of a living being with unique human DNA, and physically appears to be a human being in miniature.

Which does the thing in the top left look more like to you? Because I would say it looks a lot less like a "human being in miniature" than it does a T-rex fetus.

Also, there's no argument that "thing" is living when it's barely even formed skin to cover its organs.

Theaetetus:DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: Theaetetus: DoctorWhat: In any case, I really hate when either side trivializes the issue. The expense, risks, and imposition of pregnancy and childbirth should not be taken lightly, but neither should the life of the baby.

Good thing that there's no baby involved with abortion, then, huh?

And at what gestational age would you say there is?

By definition, at no age during gestation. A baby is born. Prior to that, we're talking about a fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, ovum, etc. depending on gestational age.

Ah, so there is no issue with aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy?

Well, first, are you conceding that your statement regarding "babies" was using a false definition? I just want to make sure we finish one point before we jump to the next. Then, I'm happy to reply.

But that's just the issue. Yes, the medical definition of the term revolves around being born or not, but that has been used by pro-choicers to make abortion seem like a non-issue. "It's only a fetus, not a baby". That's beside the point.

In the same way, the term "baby" has been used by anti-choicers to make abortion seem like infantcide, when it's clearly not.

And also, that's a different issue than your second question about "aborting a perfectly healthy fetus 39-weeks into the pregnancy". As I said, I'm happy to discuss that with you, but first we have to get away from your insistence on medically incorrect and emotionally burdened language.

So, in other words, you want to define the language and discussion points in your favor before you'll bless us with your permission to continue the discussion.

If it was up to me we would have abortion drive thru's in every impoverished location in the country!! Here's the thing: stupid, poor people breed like rats. We have more than enough stupid, poor people in this country already.Freakonomics had some interesting theories about the crime rate before and after abortion was legalized.

special20:Theaetetus: factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze. Can't say I blame 'em.

Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.

Why wouldn't the right wingers want to fund abortions to poor, presumed minority women? It seems that it would work in their favor seeing how they biatch about entitlements for poor, brown, welfare children and such. Bunch of farking hypocrites, indeed.

In a report titled "Summary of Vital Statistics 2012, The City of New York," black women not only had the highest rate of abortions but they also topped the chart with the highest number of pregnancies and miscarriages as well, surpassing all other racial groups.

Whereas black women delivered 24,758 live births, Hispanic women produced over 10,000 more. White women in New York City, on the other hand, gave birth to the highest number of live babies at 39,112.

As far as pregnancy terminations, black children who were aborted comprised 42.4 percent of the total number of abortions in New York City. In 2012, out of 73,815 abortions in the city, 31,328 black babies were aborted.

Hispanic women came in second behind their black counterparts as far as abortions at 31 percent.

White women were at the tail end of the abortion chart with 9,704, or 13 percent who opted to have the procedure.

The statistics show the city's abortion rate dropped 8.6 percent from 2011, and it has decreased 19 percent since 2003 and 22 percent since 2000.

Asians and Pacific Islander women had the lowest number of abortions according to the data, with 4,493 recorded among the group.

Theaetetus:factoryconnection: 3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze. Can't say I blame 'em.

Considering that the right wing wants to ban abortion clinics so that women go back to the coat hanger, I blame them plenty. Bunch of farking hypocrites.

Why wouldn't the right wingers want to fund abortions to poor, presumed minority women? It seems that it would work in their favor seeing how they biatch about entitlements for poor, brown, welfare children and such. Bunch of farking hypocrites, indeed.

factoryconnection:I googled "DC abortion fund" instead of clicking and sure enough:1. It is legit; they raise money to help broke women pay for an abortion2. Their "coat hanger pendant" is something they're actually giving to donors3. This has set the right wing blogs ablaze. Can't say I blame 'em.

Maybe if they sold "killin's all good 'til the baby crowns" T-shirts they could raise some more dough.

You're kidding, right? How many people who profess to be pro-choice would stick to that position regardless of whether the pregnancy was 2 or 250 days along? And how many who purport to be pro-life put their money where their mouths are and use the rhythm method?

Theaetetus:Yeah, exactly. Or anti-smoking campaigns using cancerous lungs, or even anti-abortion campaigns using pictures of aborted fetuses. Outrage is a powerful motivator.

I think the problem is that the right causes don't get stupid crazy often enough. If you could bottle that brash, loud, batshiat crazy rhetoric that so many people eat up and aim it toward a good cause or three, it'd be very interesting to see the results.

factoryconnection:Theaetetus: I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.

So you're seeing this as being in similar spirit to DV awareness campaigns using pictures of battered women in their ads? I can see that.

Yeah, exactly. Or anti-smoking campaigns using cancerous lungs, or even anti-abortion campaigns using pictures of aborted fetuses. Outrage is a powerful motivator.

Theaetetus:I disagree... There aren't many fencesitters at this point, so you don't really have to play nice so that some person who hasn't really thought about the issue will swing to one side or the other. This is more about reminding people why donations, lobbying efforts, and pressure on legislators is necessary.

So you're seeing this as being in similar spirit to DV awareness campaigns using pictures of battered women in their ads? I can see that.